Decision limits voters' choices

Published 4:37 pm, Tuesday, October 8, 2013

It was a reasonable decision by a Superior Court judge this week to take two candidates off the Nov. 5 ballot in Easton. The law had clearly not been satisfied, so the candidates had to go. But though the decision is defensible, the issue may not be settled.

The problem is one that has appeared across the state for third parties, where candidates have failed to submit to the state a required nomination endorsement letter. This is something major-party candidates don't need to do, and candidates in Easton said there is no official form provided by the state for this purpose. All that is required is a letter to the secretary of the state signed by party leadership saying they are endorsed candidates. Without it, the candidates can't be on the ballot.

In Easton, and elsewhere, the letter was missing. As a result, the incumbent town clerk and a candidate for first selectman, a husband and wife team, are off the ballot, though they say they will run as write-in candidates.

It's questionable why the rule is needed. By way of explanation, a statement from the secretary's office reads, "There have actually been recent cases where either the candidate was endorsed by a party without their consent, or local minor parties were unaware candidates were petitioning under the party name."

Those are legitimate concerns. So there's no reason the requirement shouldn't be stated more clearly and a form included among others candidates are required to fill out.

If Easton were an isolated incident it would be easy to put the blame there. Since it happened in multiple communities, it appears the problem is at a higher level.

Voters benefit from more choices. In a number of towns around the state, choices will be limited because something that could have been easily acquired was missed, and not because the candidate or party was lazy or thoughtless.

The Secretary of the State's Office also issued a statement about a separate court case, one where third-party candidates were allowed back onto the ballot in the town of East Hampton, under slightly different circumstances. "Our role in this case and other towns facing the same issue this year is simply to remind local officials of what state election laws require for minor party endorsements for municipal office," the statement read, in part.

It's no stretch to say the office could have done a better job of reminding.